cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <>
Subject Re: Source vs. Generator
Date Wed, 16 Oct 2002 20:42:16 GMT
Ugo Cei wrote:

> A long long time ago Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>> Nearly all generators could be rewritten as sources, for
>> example the RequestGenerator could be written as a "request:"
>> protocol. But does this make sense - I would say: "No". I think a 
>> protocol makes sense if several, different sources
>> (documents, pieces of information) can be obtained using this
>> protocol. For example using an FTP protocol you can fetch
>> several files from the FTP server.
>> A request protocol for example addresses only one piece of
>> information, the request.
> After more than three months, I incurred in a scenario that might 
> justify the implementation of a RequestSource.
> Say you have an HTML form with a textarea field, where the user is 
> allowed to paste an HTML (not XHTML) fragment, maybe because he is 
> using some rich text editor that outputs a bunch of invalid HTML, like 
> the MS rich text editor for IE or Mozilla's ComposIte [1].
> Moreover, say that you want to take this text and convert it to 
> well-formed XML with JTidy. You could do it all with some custom 
> action or XSP page or custom generator. But wouldn't it be much easier 
> to just write something like:
> <map:generate type="html" src="request://parameters/parametername"/>
> ?
> Is there's an easier and more elegant alternative? And if there isn't 
> one, if I wrote this kind of Source, would it be useful to someone 
> else beside me?

I was planning for something similar, but working on 
request/session/application parameters/attributes, with integration with 
xscript variables and webapps.contexts, and (possibly) with JXPath support.

PS These ideas go back to


>     Ugo
> [1]:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, email:

View raw message